Em Fri, 05 Jan 2018 20:41:41 +0100 Knut Omang <knut.om...@oracle.com> escreveu:
> On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 16:08 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Thu, 04 Jan 2018 21:15:31 +0100 > > Knut Omang <knut.om...@oracle.com> escreveu: > > > > > > I'm surprised the commit message and the provided documentation say > > > > nothing about using CHECK=foo on the command line. That already supports > > > > arbitrary checkers. > > > > > > The problem, highlighted by Jim Davis in > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/20/638 > > > > > > is that the current solution isn't flexible enough - that discussion > > > is what lead me to this reimplementation of what I originally intended > > > to be a checkpatch only solution. > > > > > > > How does this relate to that? Is this supposed to be > > > > a complete replacement? Or what? > > > > > > It has evolved into a complete replacement of the intention of CHECK. > > > > > > > 'make help' also references $CHECK, and this patch doesn't update the > > > > help text. > > > > > > I realize now that this needs to be handled in some way due to the way I > > > split the > > > arguments with '--' - the intention was to keep it for bw compatibility. > > > > > > It would be good to know if people rely on using CHECK with C={1,2} for > > > anything beside the checkers supported by runchecks today > > > > I do. Here, I use: > > > > $ make ARCH=i386 CF=-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__ CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=y C=1 > > W=1 > > CHECK='compile_checks' M=drivers/media > > > > Where "compile_checks" is actually a small script that calls both > > smatch and sparse: > > > > #!/bin/bash > > /devel/smatch/smatch -p=kernel $@ > > I suppose you here refer to this: > https://blogs.oracle.com/linuxkernel/smatch-static-analysis-tool-overview,-by-dan-carpenter > > Good idea! I'll have a look at how that plays with this. Yes. > > > /devel/sparse/sparse $@ > > > > So, I'm not sure why we need something else. > > The core functionality is the selective suppression logic and output > unification > which makes checking with automated build tools more flexible and > applicable right away (not when every warning from every checker is fixed...) If the idea is to use it only/mostly with automated build tools, then the better would be to call it only when explicitly requested, e. g. something like C=3, in order to avoid breaking the usecase where one would run its own script. On my case, I use C=1 CHECK=compile_checks as part as my usual patch handling. For every patch I apply on media, I call make again, to be sure that no warning/building errors were added, not only with gcc but also with smatch and sparse. > > > That said, I didn't look > > on its code, but looking on its diffstat: > > > > Makefile | 23 +- > > scripts/Makefile.build | 4 +- > > scripts/runchecks | 734 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > scripts/runchecks.cfg | 63 ++- > > scripts/runchecks_help.txt | 43 ++- > > > > Using a 734 lines python program just to do an exec on an external checker > > seems too much! > > Sure, if that was the case I would be the first to agree :-) > > Thanks, > Knut > > > Thanks, > > Mauro Thanks, Mauro
